EMPEROR Vs. KANJI SHIVAJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against an acquittal, and though the arguments have run to a considerable length, I am myself of opinion that the case is really a simple one. It appears to me that the learned Judge below involved himself in detail to such an extent that his attention was diverted from the cardinal points in the case. I regret to have to add that in my opinion the judgment is inaccurate in several statements as to the effect of the evidence, and that the strictures which the learned Judge allowed himself to pass upon the Committing Magistrate cannot be justified and should not have been made.

(2.) I note that counsel for the respondent has not attempted to support the acquittal on the grounds on which it was rested by the Sessions Judge, but has restricted himself to this contention, that whatever inaccuracies may be found in the judgment, they did not operate to the prejudice of the Crown case against the particular respondent now before us.

(3.) Then it was urged upon us that we are here confronted with a finding of the learned Sessions Judge, concurred in by two assessors, and we are invited to pause before upsetting such a decision, arrived at by the tribunal which had the witnesses before it. Full allowance must, no doubt, be made for the advantage which, in this respect, was possessed by the lower Court. At the same time the Government of Bombay have the right to appeal, and we are bound to form our opinion upon the evidence. This, moreover, is not a case where the decision turns upon the special credibility to be attached to one witness or another, so that we are not placed at so great a disadvantage as might otherwise be the case.